| | | | | | |  |
S. 160: | District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 | 111th Congress 2009-2010 |
A bill to provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives. OverviewSponsor: | | Text: | Summary
|
Full Text | Cost: | less than
$1
per American in 2011.
| Status: |
This bill has been passed in the Senate.
The bill now goes on to be voted on in the House.
Keep in mind that debate may be taking place on a companion bill in the
House, rather than on this particular bill.
[Last Updated: Nov 14, 2009 6:07AM] | Last Action: | Mar 2, 2009:
Held at the desk. (This generally refers to a Senate bill passed by the Senate but not yet referred to a committee in the House.) | Other Titles: | -- Second Amendment Enforcement Act | Related: | See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms
that have been applied to this bill.
Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. | Votes: | Feb 26, 2009:
This bill passed in the Senate by roll call vote.
The totals were 61 Ayes, 37 Nays, 1 Present/Not Voting.
Vote Details.
|
|
Question & Answer 
Can you answer any of these questions posed by other users? Think of it as a civic good deed.
See 2 more questions posed on this topic or submit your own question on the Q&A page.
Mar 2, 2009 11:13 AM - I understand that passage of the Motion to Invoke Cloture prevented non-germane amendments. Why were unrelated amendments (e.g. DeMint 573) allowed? -
Read AnswersAnswered by a visitor on Mar 6, 2009 9:14 AM -
Cloture was invoked on the "motion to proceed" to S.160 (that is, the motion to bring the bill to the floor). The germaneness requirement for amendments only applies after cloture is invoked on the bill itself; in this case, cloture was never invoked on the bill. Mar 9, 2009 10:10 AM - Isn't it unconstitutional for Washington, D.C. to have any powers reserved to the States since it is supposed to be a seperate federal district? -
Read AnswersAnswered by a visitor on Mar 10, 2009 9:07 PM -
Opponents believe it is, supporters believe it isn't. If the bill becomes law, it will surely be subject to review by the courts who will make the final decision |
Sources of InfluenceMAPLight.org reports that the following organizations
have taken a stance on this bill: | Support | Oppose |
|---|
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism DC Vote Upset the Setup American Bar Association League of Women Voters Civil Rights Coalition National Association for the Advancement of Colored People |
(none)
|
Follow the link to MAPLight.org to see if campaign contributions from employees of these organizations are correlated with how Members of Congress voted on this bill. Because the U.S. Congress posts most legislative information online one legislative day after events occur, GovTrack is usually one legislative day behind. For more information about where this data comes from, see
About GovTrack.us. S. 160--111th Congress: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009.
(2009).
In GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation).
Retrieved Nov 21, 2009, from
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-160
"S. 160--111th Congress: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009."
GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation).
2009.
Nov 21, 2009
<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-160>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-160
|title=S. 160
|accessdate=Nov 21, 2009
|author=111th Congress (2009)
|date=Jan 6, 2009
|work=Legislation
|publisher=GovTrack.us
|quote=District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009
}} | | | |
| |
